Yes, maybe you should - not here, but in Kentucky.
I know, but don’t tell Sister that. She thinks Paul VI is still Pope.
My partially disabled adult son is my dependent. There is no way in hell I’d want to be married to him, but financially it would be nice if I could get him covered on my work health insurance, and claim married filing staus, and hope that social security would keep paying him after I die, all of which would be true if he were my husband.
Marrriage is a contract, as far as the government is concerned, and the government should have no say in who the parties involved are. If it’s against some person’s religion to marry some other person, they don’t have to. The issues of who gets to make decisions about medical situations, and who inherits and such should all be part of the contract, and the tax advantages or disadvantages of marriage should not exist at all, IMO.
In Anglo-American common law, marriage is a contract with three parties: The bride, the groom, and the state, which is presumed to have a legitimate public-policy interest in the marriage bond. It has always been so.
But that would be convenient - and nobody ever gets married out of convenience. 
This thread is probably not the best place for this discussion, but I want to know why this should still be so. The government has an interest in all contracts, as far as civil law is concerned, why should marriage have any special status above that?
Marriage is not an ordinary commercial contract. Bear in mind that under Anglo-American common law, both adultery and fornication once were crimes, things government is supposed to discourage and prevent or, failing that, punish; which it cannot do unless it is very, very clear who is and is not married to whom. Marriage also brings with it unique obligations of spousal support and child support.
Remember why marriage exists. Not to celebrate two people’s love, but to provide a solid foundation for transmitting family property and raising up children – and to provide a distinction between a man’s lawful children who are entitled to inherit and his bastards who are not. The latter is probably why marriage was invented in the first place; it was a concession to wives and their families, who wanted some assurance that their special claims on the man’s property would be protected.
The government doesn’t have an interest in other contracts unless the parties to the contracts are in litigation. The government has an interest in marriage from the beginning, given the breadth of the laws on domestic relations and the special tax treatment of marriages, to name but two issues.
Yes, this is why it was invented. But that’s not its sole purpose any more.
I guess my issue is with what is, versus what should be. With me, saying 'It has always been so." is like waving a red flag in front of a bull and I understand that this is not true for everyone, but I do believe I have asked a valid question. The very idea that some children are “legitimate” while others aren’t, based on this contract, seems outdated to me. I don’t think that marriage should actually have special tax treatment. I don’t see a reason for all of those laws on domestic relations either; that shouldn’t be any business of the government.
Because we as a society want a set of default rules so that we do not have to rewrite them every time someone wants to get married. Because all of the associated rights and privileges of marriage are an accretion of centuries of legal wrangling and decision-making.
If you took them away, they would re-accrue. They might not be identical at that point, but they would exist.
Jesus, people, isn’t this thread long enough without side discussions about Roman numerals and marriage law?
It pretty much is, actually. Official recognition of gay – or straight – marriage would be completely unnecessary if the relationship did not involve legal rights and duties and property interests.
We’re just trying to keep busy. Some days – not many, but some – the Pubs get lazy with the stupid.
I mean it’s not about children any more. It’s certainly still about property.
They seem to be picking up the slack – the headline of this one pretty much says it all:
Arizona Lawmaker Thinks the Anti-Gay Bill He Voted For Is Making the State Look Bad
The distinction between legitimate and illegitimate children is essentially nonexistent now. Generally, the only legal significance is that an illegitimate child must prove paternity to inherit from the father’s estate. Other than that, the equal protection clause basically prevents states from distinguishing between the two classes.
The tax treatment hasn’t “always been so”. It’s a relatively recent idea - and the tax code really only benefits single-income households. It’s also true that its an idea whose time has probably passed, now that a majority of women are in the labor force.
Oh, and check this out!
“providing water service that artificially fluoridate their community drinking water must notify the consumers of that treated water, that the latest science confirms that ingested fluoride lowers the I.Q. in children.”
Whoever wrote that had a low IQ.